MISC CIVIL APPLICATION NO

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (MAIN REGISTRY)

AT DODOMA MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21108 OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR ORDERS

OF MANDAMUS AND CERTIORARI AND IN THE MATTER OF THE LAW REFORM (FATAL ACCIDENTS AND MISSECCLLENEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT [CAP. 310 R.E. 2019]

IN THE MATTER OF DISMISSAL DECISION OF THE TANZANIA POLICE FORCE DATED 05™ JUNE 2024, THAT DISCONTINUED THE APPLICANT

FROM HIS DUTY POST AS POLICE OFFICER

AND

IN THE MATTER OF DECISION OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE FORCE DATED ON 12™ MARCH 2024, THAT DISCONTINUED THE

APPLICANT FROM HIS DUTY POST AS POLICE OFFICER

BETWEEN EX - F.4092 CPL IBRAHIM NKANYILA.....................................APPLICANT AND THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE.... ..................... ...1st RESPONDENT THE HONORABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL............................2nd RESPONDENT

RULING 20.09.2024 & 08 .10.2024. U.E. MADEHA. 3 The Applicant herein, filed application for leave to file an application for Judicial Review for orders of mandamus and certiorari. The application has been preferred under Rule 5(1) of the Law Reform (Fatal Accident i and Miscellaneous Provision) Act Cap 310 R.E. 2019 Rules GN. No. 324 on 5th May 2014 hereinafter referred "Rules", accompanied by an affirming affidavit by the applicant EX-F.4092 CPL Ibrahim Nkanyila and accompanied by the Statement of facts. The Applicant prays for orders as listed in the Chamber Summons as follows: a. The applicant be granted leave to apply for orders of mandamus and certiorari; and b. Any other order as the court may deem right andjust to grant. The key facts of this application are as follows: the applicant was employed by the Tanzania Police Force until his termination on 5th June 2023. He contends that the termination was unlawful and procedurally flawed, prompting him to appeal to the Inspector General of Police (IGP). However, his appeal was unsuccessful, and he was officially informed of this decision in a letter, reference number GA/PF/4092/A/60, signed by DCP Gabriel A. Semiono on 12th March 2024. This sets the stage for the applicant's current application, as he challenges the legality and fairness of the termination process, seeking justice after his appeal to the IGP was

dismissed. During the hearing of this application, the applicant appeared in person unrepresented. The respondents were represented by Mr. Omary Ally Ngatanda, learned state attorney, who indicated that the respondents 2 were not opposing the application and, therefore, did not submit a counter affidavit. At this point, it is important to note that although no counter affidavit was filed to contest the application and the respondents do not oppose it, it remains the court's responsibility to ascertain whether the conditions for granting the application have been satisfied. The applicant has nothing more to say than to adopt what was found in his affidavit in support of chamber summons and the statement of facts. The respondent as indicated through Mr. Omary Ally Ngatanda, responded by informing this court that they were not contesting the application. This court considered whether the application is merited. The position of law in considering whether leave should be granted has been stated in several decisions, including the famous case of Emma Bayo v. The Minister for Labour and Youth Development and others, Civil Appeal No. 77 of 2012 CAT (Unreported). In Cheavo Juma Mshana vs. Tanapa and 2 Others (Misc. Civil Cause 7 of 2020) [2021] TZHC 2254, this court Mkapa J (as she then was) cited Republic vs. Land Dispute Tribunal Court Central Division and Another [2006] 1 EA 321,

where it was held that; "Leave should be granted, if on the material available the court considers, without going into the matter in depth, that there is an arguable case for granting leave and that the leave stage is a filter whose purpose is to weed out hopeless cases at an earliest possible time, thus saving the pressure on the courts and needless expense for the applicant by allowing malicious and futile claims." Accordingly, in Cheavo case, citing R.V.T.R.C Exp National Federation of Self Employed and Small Business Ltd (1982) A.C 617 this court held that; the applicant must demonstrate that there is an arguable case, thus a ground for seeking judicial review exists, the applicant has to show sufficient interest in the matter to which the application relates, and that the applicant has acted promptly. Now in this application, the applicant in the statement has indicated what grounds he wishes to argue in the application if granted leave, that is; matters of unreasonableness/irrationality and violation of the principles of Natural Justice. The applicant has indicated what he will argue in the application, in fact, matters that can ground challenging the decision by way of judicial review. In assessing whether the applicant acted promptly, the standard for promptness is outlined under Rule 6 of the Rules, which states that leave to apply for judicial review shall not be

granted unless the application is made within six months from the date of the proceedings, act, or omission in question. The applicant has adhered to this requirement, having filed the application within the six-month timeframe, specifically from 12th March 2024, when the contested decision was issued, to 28th August 2024, when this application was submitted. Having considered the matter, I find that the contested decision to terminate the applicant's service directly impacted him, thus giving the applicant sufficient interest to pursue judicial review. Consequently, I conclude that the application has merit, and the applicant is granted leave to seek judicial review within fourteen days from the date of this ruling to challenge the actions of the respondents. No orders as to Costs. It is so ordered. DATED at Dodoma this 8thday of October, 2024. U. E. Madeha.

JUDGE 08/10/2024 5 Delivered at Dodoma in the presence of the Applicant and Mr. Nicodemus Agweyo the State Attorney for the Respondents this 8th day of October, 2024. Right of appeal dully explained. U. E. Madeha.

JUDGE 08/10/2024 6